Preview

Sociology of Power

Advanced search

The Problem of Relevance in Post-Actor-Network Theory

https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-2-38-61

Abstract

 

The article is devoted to the problem of relevance in post-actor network theory. In the context of the turn to the material in sociological theory, one of the key tasks is to determine the relevance of non-humans in social interactions or in broader social processes. This article critically examines various solutions to the problem of relevance in actor-network theory. Latourian solution focuses on the disciplinary power of objects and leaves out other types of object agency. We demonstrate that the re-conceptualization of the object in post-actor-network theory (Law, Mol, Singleton) opens up new aspects of the relevance problem. Although researchers manage to solve the so-called problem of network isolationism, a new problem arises related to the identification of object boundaries. Since post-actor network theory conceptualizes the object as multiple and enacted in practices, the question of relevance of the material object shifts to the question of relevant practices in which different versions of the object are enacted. Within the framework of post-ANT, a topological model of object enactments has been developed — researchers show that an object can exist in region, network, fluid and fire space. As a consequence, the key task of the analyst becomes the identification of the multiple spaces within which the object is enacted. However, the topological model used by post-ANT researchers focuses only on the spaces of the object, leaving out the temporal dimension of enactments. In this paper, we problematize the status of fluid and fire spaces and suggest that they should be considered as temporal rather than spatial concepts. We conclude by outlining prospects for developing a temporal conceptualization of multiple objects.

About the Author

M. D. Malkov
MSSES
Russian Federation

 Malkov Maksim Dmitrievich — Master’s degree in Sociology, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES), guest lecturer at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE).

Moscow



References

1. Astakhov S. S. (2017) The problem of contingency in actor-network theory: dissertation of a candidate of philosophical sciences: 09.00.01. Moscow. — in Russ.

2. Bryant L.R. (2019) Democracy of Objects, Perm: Gile Press. — in Russ.

3. Latour B., Vakhshtayn V., Smirnov A. (2007) On interobjectivity. Russian Sociological Review. 2007. 2(6): 79–98. — in Russ.

4. Latour B. The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative. Sociology of Power, 8: 113– 143. — in Russ.

5. Latour B. (2013) Science in Action: Following Scientists and Engineers within Society, St. Petersburg: European University Publishing House in St. Petersburg. — in Russ.

6. Latour B. (2014) Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory, M.: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics. — in Russ.

7. Latour B. (2015) Pasteur: War and the world of microbes, with the application of the “Irreducible”, M.: Autonomous non-profit educational organization of higher education. — in Russ.

8. Latour B. (2017) AST: the question of recall. Logos, 27(1): 201-216. — in Russ.

9. Laet M., Mol A. Zimbabwean bush pump: mechanics of fluid technology. Logos. 27(2): 171–232. — in Russ.

10. Lo D., Vakhshtayn V. (2006) Objects and spaces. Russian Sociological Review, 1: 30–42. — in Russ.

11. Lo D. (2015) After the method: disorder and social science, M.: Foundation “Institute of Economic Policy named after. E.T. Gaidar». — in Russ.

12. Lo D. (2018) Technology and heterogeneous engineering: the case of Portuguese expansion. Logos, 28(5): 169–202. — in Russ.

13. Laet M., Mol A. (2017) Zimbabwean bush pump: mechanics of fluid technology. Logos. 27(2): 171–232. — in Russ.

14. Mol A. (2017) Multiple body: Ontology in medical practice, Perm: Gile Press, 2017. — in Russ.

15. Napreenko I.V. (2013) Semiotic turn in STS: Bruno Latour’s theory of referent. Sociology of power, 1–2: 75–98. — in Russ.

16. ХHarman G. (2018) Immaterialism. Objects and social theory, M.: Gaidar Institute Publishing House. — in Russ.

17. Harman G. (2017) Networks and assemblages: the revival of things in Latour and Deland. Logos, 27(3): 1–34. — in Russ.

18. Shevchenko V. S. (2019) Conflict of models of otherness in the actor-network theory of John Law. Sociology of power, 2: 45–67. — in Russ.

19. Bloomfield B.P., Vurdubakis T. (1999) The outer limits: monsters, actor networks and the writing of displacement. Organization, 4(6): 625–647.

20. Burr J., Fox N. (2023) The more-than-human micropolitics of the dissection assemblage: what can a “dead”body do? Body & Society. Online first.

21. Button G. (1993) Technology in working order: Studies of work, interaction, and technology, Routledge.

22. Callon M., Latour B. (1981) Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro-and macro-sociologies, (1).

23. Caronia L., Cooren F. (2014) Decentering our analytical position: The dialogicity of things. Discourse & Communication, 8(1).

24. Caronia L., Mortari L. (2015) The agency of things: how spaces and artefacts organize the moral order of an intensive care unit. Social Semiotics, 4 (25): 401–422.

25. Cerulo K.A. (2009) Nonhumans in social interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, (35): 531–552.

26. Cooren F. (2020) Beyond entanglement: (Socio-)materiality and organization studies. Organization Theory, 3(1).

27. Demant J. (2009) When alcohol acts: An actor-network approach to teenagers, alcohol and parties. Body & Society. Т. 15. № 1. С. 25‒46

28. Erofeeva M. (2019) On multiple agencies: when do things matter? Information, Communication & Society. 5(22): 590–604.

29. Gomart E., Hennion A. (1999) A sociology of attachment: music amateurs, drug users. The sociological review. S1(47): 220–247.

30. Høstaker R. (2005) Latour-semiotics and science studies. Science & Technology Studies. 2(18): 5–25.

31. Jarzabkowski P., Pinch T. (2013) Sociomateriality is “the New Black”: accomplishing repurposing, reinscripting and repairing in context. M@n@gement, 5: 579–592.

32. Latour B. (1994) On technical mediation. Common knowledge. 2 (3): 29–64.

33. Latour B. (1997) Trains of thought: the fifth dimension of time and its fabrication. Common knowledge, 4.

34. Latour B. (2004) Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical inquiry, 2: 225–248.

35. Law J. (1993) Organising Modernity: Social Ordering and Social Theory. John Wiley & Sons.

36. Law J. (1999) After ANT: complexity, naming and topology. The sociological review. 47(S1).

37. Law J., Mol A. (2001) Situating technoscience: an inquiry into spatialities. Environment and planning D: society and space, 5: 609–621.

38. Law J., Mol A. (1994) Regions, networks and fluids: anaemia and social topology. Social studies of science, 24(4): 641‒671.

39. Law J., Singleton V. (2005) Object lessons. Organization, 12(3).

40. Lee N., Brown S. (1994) Otherness and the actor network: the undiscovered continent. American Behavioral Scientist, 6: 772–790.

41. Mol A. (2008) The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. Routledge.

42. Mol A. (2010) Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 1(50): 253–269.

43. Mol A. Film 3. Studying differences in medicine and conducting fieldwork in a hospital. YouTube, uploaded by Les Possédés et leurs mondes. 7 sept, 2021, ссылка на видео: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0SPWxG7qMo

44. Nathues E., Vuuren M. van, Cooren F. (2021) Speaking about vision, talking in the name of so much more: A methodological framework for ventriloquial analyses in organization studies. Organization studies, 9(42): 1457–1476.

45. Nicolini D. (2009) Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization studies, 12(30): 1391–1418.

46. Pentzold C., Bischof A. (2019) Making affordances real: socio-material prefiguration, performed agency, and coordinated activities in human–robot communication. Social Media+Society, 3(5).

47. Radder H. (1992) Normative reflexions on constructivist approaches to science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 1(22): 141–173.

48. Radder H. (1998) The politics of STS. Social studies of science, 2: 325–331.

49. Sayes E. (2014) Actor–Network Theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that nonhumans have agency? Social studies of science. 1: 134–149.

50. Schaffer S., Latour B. (1991) The eighteenth brumaire of Bruno Latour. Studies in history and philosophy of science. 1: 175–192.

51. Schmidt R. (2019) Materiality, meaning, social practices: Remarks on new materialism. Discussing new materialism: Methodological implications for the study of materialities: 135–149.

52. Singleton V. (1996) Feminism, sociology of scientific knowledge and postmodernism: politics, theory and me. Social studies of science, 2: 445–468.

53. Sørensen E. et al. (2007) The time of materiality. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(1).

54. Star S. L. (1990) Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: on being allergic to onions. The Sociological Review, 1_suppl (38): 26–56.

55. Strathern M. (1996) Cutting the network. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute: 517–535.

56. Weinberg D. (2021) Diagnosis as topic and as resource: Reflections on the epistemology and ontology of disease in medical sociology. Symbolic Interaction, 2: 367–391.


Review

For citations:


Malkov M.D. The Problem of Relevance in Post-Actor-Network Theory. Sociology of Power. 2023;35(2):38-61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-2-38-61

Views: 118


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2074-0492 (Print)
ISSN 2413-144X (Online)